Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

What is the actual payload capacity of the SpaceX Starship(V1) in reusable usage?

Before around one month Elon Musk said: “Currently, Flight 3 would be around 40-50 tons to orbit.” talking in nasaspacefligt forum: Link What I ask. Because in infobox on article for SpaceX Starship (launch system) payload capacity maybe is unreliable in some cases...Before existance of SpaceX Starship V3(~150 meters high) with best future version of Raptor engine and much bigger reservoirs. Sometime in the future. ГеоргиУики (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

IFT-3 was underfilled, so it's performance is a very poor judge of V1 performance.

After IFT-3, Elon said V1 expendable could lift 200 tons to LEO.

And according to SpaceX, there is a 100 ton difference in reusable v.s expendable payload.

200-100=100.

Of course, these numbers vary between different orbits (LEO extends from 100 km to 2000 km, which is a ~1-1.5 km/s dV difference) Redacted II (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah ig that makes sense but can't rely on those 2 sources too much - 100 tons still seems like a bit of a stretch?

I assume and IIRC, V1 didn't meet their originals goals for payload capacity due to engine throttling, weight issues etc so V2 will have a capacity of ~100 tons instead. Does the infobox need to be changed to reflect that the reusable payload of 100-150 tons is for V2, a planned version? Might also need to change the versions section to say that V1 didn't meet intended goals. Spookywooky2 (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are usable for determining payload, so 100 tons isn't a "stretch".

I don't think the infobox needs to be changed until V2 flies. Redacted II (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, as @Arch dude said, the numbers are theoretical, so the infobox doesn't need to be changed. If the capacity actually is around 100t, it doesn't really matter since V1 (prototype) isn't designed to be operational. Spookywooky2 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If we go along this line of reasoning, doesn't it turn out that version 2 of Starship will be just for testing? ГеоргиУики (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No, because:

"it doesn't really matter since V1 (prototype) isn't designed to be operational" Redacted II (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Too many units were produced for a test-only series. Some were retired without even reaching trials. Admit it, you too thought this would be the working version a while back, and changed your mind when it became clear that it wasn't capable of achieving its intended goals. ГеоргиУики (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Too many units were produced for a test-only series"

Iterative development, just with hardware instead of software.

"Admit it, you too thought this would be the working version a while back, and changed your mind when it became clear that it wasn't capable of achieving its intended goals"

Even if that was correct (and its not, BTW), no one here is making decisions at SpaceX, so this is 100% irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You won't be able to convince me that someone would use a prehistoric approach costing many billions due to scale over a simulation that will produce good results and cost 100 times cheaper. ГеоргиУики (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"You won't be able to convince me that someone would use a prehistoric approach costing many billions due to scale"

Starship dev cost: $5 billion: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/spacex-joining-faa-to-fight-environmental-lawsuit-over-starship.html

"simulation that will produce good results and cost 100 times cheaper"

SLS dev cost: at least $23.8 billion: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-does-not-deny-the-over-2-billion-cost-of-a-single-sls-launch/

.2 is not 100 Redacted II (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

About this 5B...

Something strange for a long time maintained this amount of money, as a statement about the amount of expenses. It's like since day 1 it was mentioned, SpaceX hasn't spent a cent so far. ГеоргиУики (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The 5B number is sourced (and irrelevant to the discussion of V1 payload capacity. But if you want to complain about inaccurate dev cost listings on Wikipedia, I recommend starting with SLS) Redacted II (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can change the numbers in the article yet. I also think the answer is completely theoretical since it is unlikely that there will ever be a payload-carrying reusable V1. The V1 was a prototype. No more will be built and the existing ones will be expended during the test campaign. -Arch dude (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Stick to reliable sources ("Elon said" is not a WP:RS). And remember this is WP:NOTFORUM {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Agile Jello Those numbers were removed for a few reasons, which I described in the revert.

V1 payload issue: IFT-3 was underfueled, and V1 expendable is ~200 tons. Since reusable payload is 100 less than expendable, V1 payload is reusable.

V2 payload issues: the #s are still unknown, but match the previous values listed for starship. This indicates 150 tons max

V3: very unknown.

There is no reason to include this information in the infobox.

Please self-revert. Redacted II (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing you say matters if you don't have a reliable source that states current V1 reusable payload capacity. The best source we have for this is Elon Musk's presentation where he clearly states a reusable payload capacity of 40-50 tons for flight 3 (which he uses as representative of V1). We cannot calculate reusable payload capacity from the expendable payload capacity. Agile Jello (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship

And if we count "Musk said" as a reliable source:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1768543877756060148

There is already a consensus to not change the payload #s. By not immediately self-reverting, you are in violation of this consensus. Redacted II (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That SpaceX page does not specify that the 100-150 t capacity applies for V1. Frankly this page seems out of date and does not represent the reality of the latest flights. The Elon Musk tweet specifies an expendable payload capacity of 200 t for V1 but this says nothing about reusability. And this same tweet specifies that V3 will have 200 t reusable payload, which is in line with his presentation where he states that V1 has a 40-50 t reusable capacity. Everything seems in line for an 40-50 t payload capacity for V1, but you for some reason don't want to accept that. "Musk said" is an acceptable source because he is a subject matter expert, but even then I tried to add a secondary source as well. Agile Jello (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Look at the render. Its V1 (HSR and Forward Flaps are a giveaway).

And your "secondary source" has only one source: Musk. So, you have one source, and that source isn't reliable.

If you really want, I can go through the reasons that he isn't reliable. Redacted II (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The SpaceX page is old and was probably written before they realized the initial version of Starship would not reach their target of 100-150 t payload to orbit. We should not guess that that number applies to V1. That page is clearly not preferred to a more up to date reliable source that specifically lists the payload capacity for each version.

"And your "secondary source" has only one source: Musk." Yes, this is how secondary sources work--they report on primary sources. Musk is obviously unreliable on a lot of things but he is the owner of SpaceX and anything he says about SpaceX is acceptable as a source. Agile Jello (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The SpaceX page was last updated just before IFT-1, which probably could lift less than the IFT-3 vehicle (if IFT-3 was fully fueled).

"Anything Musk says about SpaceX" is not acceptable as a source, for several reasons (Link Rot, Twitter is almost never a WP:RS, Musk is just plain unreliable. Have you ever heard of 'Elon Time'?). Read the statement by Gtoffoletto. Redacted II (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Ift-4

Safe to say its a success! (Cant belive that flap held on for fear life) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. This should be catalogued as full success (apart from that one Raptor Boost). CaptHorizon (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

100% success.

Launch: 100% success, all that is needed (ship reached desired trajectory)

Boostback: 100% success

Landing burn: 100% success

Ship entry: somehow a success, despite that forward flap.

Landing burn: somehow a success, despite the damage during entry Redacted II (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I mainly saw damage during landing burn, but good summary. (Seriously hope no one questions success) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! Complete, 100%, success. Ergzay (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone compiled a list of articles here.

Even the most negative headline is "SpaceX's mega rocket completes test flight without exploding." (Thanks, AP)

So I think the situation is well within most commonly argued success criteria. Foonix0 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

First IFT without a heated argument in the talk section it seems! ditto all of the above. 152.78.0.242 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not characterize test launches as neither successes nor failures. The point of these launches is to gather flight data to improve the design and operations of the vehicle in the future. It doesn't matter if the flight is a "success" or a "failure", it will have completed its objective of testing the vehicle regardless. Agile Jello (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That discussion goes here. Redacted II (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No qualms from me this time. Full success. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Varients picture resolution

Is it only me who has it in a super low, unreadable resolution? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's useless. It's a non-free image (copyright held by SpaceX), and Wikipedia's rules regarding non-free images require it to be reduced to the size that the image now has. In this case, it makes the text in the image unreadable and useless. It should be deleted from the article. It could be replaced by a free image if somebody creates one. Indefatigable (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If not an image, a table would be pretty effective as well 73.210.30.217 (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Links to Successful launches in infobox

@Gtoffoletto Successful launches aren't linked on other pages (Falcon 9 is an example of this), and it will be highly impractical to continue doing this once Starship is flying operationally. Redacted II (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. It seems strange that we link the other 2 launches though. Maybe leave them until they become too many? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. I'd prefer to remove them, but I get keeping them. Redacted II (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it Till starship (upper stage) landing flight occurs at max Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Redacted II (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

When they do a ship catch, i mean. But thats the maximum. Id prefer remowing them aswell Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Redacted II (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Height of V3 Starship

Under #Versions it is claimed that V3 will be 126m tall, using this Elon tweet from May as a source: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1795208740217422009 saying that "Starship version 3 ~15m longer and will have about 3 times the thrust of Saturn V".

It seems it has been interpreted that "~15m longer" is in relation to the Saturn V (110.6m) but I am not sure this is correct. To me it seems that Elon is only comparing the thrust numbers with the Saturn V and that the 15m is in relation to the current version of Starship (121m, thus making V3 in the ballpark of the 150 number mentioned at the presentation in April).

I could be wrong, but it would be a drastic change made in the matter of a month. Not to mention, that the capability numbers from the presentation (100+ tons for V2 vs 200+ tons for V3) are hardly achievable when the difference in height would be a mere 1.5 meters. Lomicto (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The variants picture says 150 aswell Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So the most recent data is comparing V3 to the Saturn V, saying it will have (IIRC) 3.5x the thrust and 15 m taller.

111+15=126.

But if you guys are skeptical, then I can self-revert and remove it. Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont know, the picture IS official, but they could have Made a mistake...

Let's just leave it until we hear more about v3, its not gonna matter for a while anyway. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the picture is official, but V3 is so conceptual any info (no matter how reliable the source) is informed speculation at best. Redacted II (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's leave it however you wrote it id say Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

New source, its 150 m.

I've already changed it Redacted II (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

lede is garbled and unclear

In the second paragraph of the lede, the sentence beginning with "Following a 'belly flop' maneuver, ..." is garbled and ungrammatical. In the same paragraph, the sentence beginning with "After boosting the spacecraft, ..." is garbled and unclear. It seems like it's skipping over some middle portion of the booster's flight. I would try to make edits to fix these problems, but I can't tell what these sentences are trying to express.--Penflange (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the way its written is fine. About the grammar, im not particularly great at it, so someone else surely knows it better then me, but i dont think its incorrect Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the parts immediately after "Following a 'belly flop maneuver'". Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 00:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede is fine, and further details are covered here. Redacted II (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the correct balance to strike here between spaceflight vocabulary and descriptions that would be understandable by a layman is the real question. But i think regardless, every statement needs to pass accuracy and fact check, as required. Thistheyear2023 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Spacecraft and booster article cutouts.

I feel like they are too long, and overly detailed. For example: the booster part talks quite extensivley about how musk said it will weigh this much. This is quite boring to a reader who wants basic information. If they want to know the mass, they could look up the actual page. In general, this musk said this and that should be remowed, or rephrased. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Redacted II (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Statements that read like news or press releases should be taken out and in turn should be re-written within the lens of an encyclopedia, which is purely knowledge-based in spirit. Unfortunately, due to the fast paced nature of this program and SpaceX related content in large, i find its almost inevitable that some of the content will read like news. Its just the nature of the beast right now. But definitely there's value in rewriting both articles, especially for youth who will be referencing these articles in the future, for many SpaceX is their first exposure to spaceflight. It will take an individual with a unique mix of sufficient knowledge about Wikipedia content standards, spaceflight, and writing prowess to be able to turn these from passable to great articles. Thistheyear2023 (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't with the articles, just the sections shown here. Redacted II (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Replace non-free image of Starship versions table with text

For accessibility (WP:IUP#FORMAT) and copyright reasons (WP:NFCCP) I'd change the format of this slide to wikitext:

	Flight 3	Starship 2	Starship 3
Payload to Orbit (t)	N/A	100+	200+
Booster Prop Load (t)	3300	3650	4050
Ship Prop Load (t)	1200	1500	2300
Booster Liftoff Thrust (tf)	7130	8240	10000
Ship Initial Thrust (tf)	1250	1600	2700
Ship SL Engines	3	3	3
Ship VAC Engines	3	3	6
Booster Height (m)	71	72.3	80.2
Ship Height (m)	50.3	52.1	69.8
Total Height (m)	121.3	124.4	150

However, I couldn't find the primary source for the slide, which is currently not really readable at File:Starship Versions.jpeg. HLFan (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Way better then what currently is! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Done Thistheyear2023 (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I can cite it Redacted II (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong citation

In the "Fifth integrated flight test" section it is written: "As of May 2024, IFT-5 is expected to occur in late July." with a reference to citation 171: "SpaceX aims to launch Starship after Memorial Day". KVEO-TV. 14 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024."

The correct citation is 172: Musk, Elon [@elonmusk] (15 June 2024). "Aiming to try this in late July!"(Tweet).

But citation 172, is already given for the next sentence. I think in this case we can have the reference given only once at the next sentence. AlainFournier (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll fix the citation Redacted II (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2024

The date of IFT-5 should be updated according to newer information provided in the "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5" page.

On this page, in the Fifth integrated flight test paragraph it is written: As of May 2024, IFT-5 is expected to occur in late June.

On the "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5" page it is written: Based on comments from Elon Musk, the fifth flight test is expected no earlier than late July 2024. With the reference:

@elonmusk (June 15, 2024). "Aiming to try this in late July!" (Tweet). Retrieved June 15, 2024 – via Twitter. AlainFournier (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is not considered a reliable source. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The "reliable source" cited for the late June date points to a ValleyCentral.com article from May 14th (before IFT-4) and gives a "after Memorial Day weeekend" date for the next launch, which means that date is for IFT-4, not IFT-5. No late June date is given in the cited article.

Therefore, the source cited is phony. @elonmusk being SpaceX's boss, I think in this case a tweet from him can be considered a reliable source. It is at least better than a phony source for the June date. AlainFournier (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As the person who included that source, RGV Aerial (IIRC) claimed that IFT-5's date was stated in that interview.

So, I used that source.

But this is irrelevant: the article has been updated already. Redacted II (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

100-150 T to orbit in right hand info box

Should the article state that the vehicle is capable of delivering this mass to LEO when the vehicle has not yet done that? In the article itself, it correctly states that this is the purported mass to LEO. The right hand info box should also make this clear. 184.175.54.203 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

100% yes.

For example, Falcon Heavy has never flown a 63.8 ton payload into LEO. But that's what its capable of, so that's what its listed payload capacity is. Redacted II (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move of SpaceX Starship flight test pages

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4, impacting all of the SpaceX Starship integrated flight test pages, that may be of interest to followers of this page. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion here. Redacted II (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Different articles for Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3.

There is precedent for different versions of a launch vehicle to have dedicated articles. For example, Falcon 9's versions are:

Falcon 9 v1.0

Falcon 9 v1.1

Falcon 9 Full Thrust

Falcon 9 Block 5

Therefore, Starship 1 should have a dedicated article, followed by an article for Starship 2 (and maybe Starship 3). Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good example. In retrospect, I'm not convinced that individual articles for each Falcon 9 variant was the best approach. These are not total redesigns like say Ariane 5 vs Ariane 6.

A single, comprehensive article covering all Falcon 9 variants would have provide a more cohesive understanding of the rocket's evolution.

The problem is that well meaning editors created the Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and Falcon 9 Full Thrust articles amid the excitement when they were the new shiny rockets. But as the rockets matured, the pages languished. Note that a Falcon 9 Block 4 article was never made and the quality of the article for the Falcon 9 Block 5 (arguably the most important variant of the class) is lower than the others.

The other issue I foresee is that unlike the early days Falcon 9 program, which was largely in support of the COTS and CRS programs, which meant NASA published a lot of public documentation... that does not exist to the same level for Starship, which will make it even more challenging to create standalone pages for its variants.

By focusing on a smaller number of well-written, in-depth articles, we can allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content. Also, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a crystal ball, which means that our content should be weighted towards covering things that happened in the past, not things happening now or in the future (although those things do get covered). It's okay to wait, see how things play out in the arc of history and create pages accordingly. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There were substantial redesigns between Falcon versions, and between Starship 1 and Starship 2.

V1.0 -> V1.10 is by far the most visually obvious: new aft design (May be present on Starship 2), stretched tanks (Present on Starship 2), uprated engines, and both landings legs + grid fins (Starship 2 has redesigned forward flaps).

V1.10 -> Full Thrust introduced super-cooled propellant, an upgraded structure (Present on Starship 2), stretched tanks, new interstage (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and additional upgrades to the engines.

Full Thrust -> Block 5 has more engine upgrades, upgraded heat shield (Present on Starship 2), new grid fins, and redesigned COPVs.

That alone makes the differences worthy of dedicated articles, according to precedent. But for further precedent, Atlas I and Atlas II. The differences were solely stretched tanks, upgraded engines (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and the option to have up to four Castor 4A SRBs.

There is substantial documentation of Starship 1 and Starship 2. Finding sources won't be a challenge.

The reason Block 4 doesn't have a dedicated article may be because it was a transition design between Block 3 and Block 5. This is why I'm not proposing an article for a Starship 2 ship on a Starship 1 booster (Currently planned for at least Flights 7 and 8, FAA documents indicates up to 20 more flights of Starship 1's booster).

(All the above information is taken from Wikipedia articles)

As for WP:Crystal Ball, Starship 2 is not a "future design". There is a fully stacked Starship 2 upper stage in Mega Bay 2 right now (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuJYUqzKE5Q). Redacted II (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is, those design changes can be covered on a single, comprehensive article. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But historically, they have not. And it would be a massive strain on this article to feature all of Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 to a substantially greater extent than Falcon 9 does for V1.0, V1.10, ect, ect. Giving each version a dedicated article will enable us to, as you put it "allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content". Redacted II (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with RickyCourtney that no separate article needed, and with Falcon it would probably have been better to have a single article only. Vast majority of Wikipedia readers don’t differentiate between different Starship (or Falcon) models and would get confused what is the right article to search information. IlkkaP (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The already large strain on this article is already bad, but having to condense multiple starship variants into one article would be nothing short of disasterous for the article Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is true that the article is quite long. However, Version section takes only a few paragraphs. I would remove charts from Launch history (summary level information of the launches in Infobox is more than enough, and if more information needed can visit the separate article). Potential missions and Potential use cases sections could be condensed, there is too much fluff there now. IlkkaP (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a terrible indicator.

Falcon 9 V1.0 section:

"F9 v1.0 was an expendable launch vehicle developed from 2005 to 2010. It flew for the first time in 2010. V1.0 made five flights, after which it was retired. The first stage was powered by nine Merlin 1C engines arranged in a 3 × 3 grid. Each had a sea-level thrust of 556 kN (125,000 lb_f) for a total liftoff thrust of about 5,000 kN (1,100,000 lb_f). The second stage was powered by a single Merlin 1C engine modified for vacuum operation, with an expansion ratio of 117:1 and a nominal burn time of 345 seconds. Gaseous N₂ thrusters were used on the second-stage as a reaction control system (RCS).

Early attempts to add a lightweight thermal protection system to the booster stage and parachute recovery were not successful.

In 2011, SpaceX began a formal development program for a reusable Falcon 9, initially focusing on the first stage."

The Falcon 9 V1.0 article is 18399 bytes.

The draft I have for Starship 1 is (As of September 4, 11:09 EDT) over 3.5x as large. Redacted II (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

We are probably talking different topics. I am referring to this article and its sections, not Falcon 9 article. IlkkaP (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are.

The Version section of this article is, as you said, a few paragraphs.

The section of the Falcon 9 article dedicated to V1.0 is a single paragraph.

The Falcon 9 V1.0 article is 18 kilobytes.

The Draft I have for Starship 1 is 64 kilobytes.

There is more than enough on Starship 1 to warrant its own article. Redacted II (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, starship versions deserve their own article Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the links to Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 under the Launch History, Vehicle variants section are broken. They are pointing to "Version_1", "Version_2", and "Version_3" rather than "Starship_1", "Starship_2", "Starship_3". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexden12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The launch history is taken from List of SpaceX Starship Launches, which is not protected - but I fixed the links there, thanks. The different Falcon variants all delivered payloads to space and they have tons of known differences. For now we don't have an equivalent to that with Starship. v1 and v2 look like just steps in the development process, v1 is not expected to carry payloads to orbit at all. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

V1 is the largest rocket ever flown, and it will be until Starship 2 flies. That makes it extremely notable. Redacted II (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the first rocket to attempt at a “catch” landing. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Rather than having different articles for Starship 1,2,3, because we have different Falcon articles, I think those Falcon articles should be merged. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging the articles was proposed and rejected here. But if you want, you can try to get them merged into the Falcon 9 article. Redacted II (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Whether to create standalone pages" section of the Wikipedia notability guideline may be useful to help guide the discussion here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: This article can utilize the most up to date information we have, and older information can go into the block subsections. Having a lengthy description here is better than three stub articles. I'm quite concerned about duplication of information and information being neglected from all four articles. All evidence suggests differences (relevant to WP) between versions will be able to be summarized in a few paragraphs. Narnianknight (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree this is too soon. Let's see how things evolve. The differences at the moment are definitely minor. A real starship 1 doesn't even exist yet. This is still the development phase. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the final form of Starship 1.

Ther will only be one more flight. Ever. After that, they'd have to ready S32, which is behind S33 in assembly (S33 has raceway, complete TPS, and aft flaps). Redacted II (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated content from sub-articles?

I notice that some of the content in the Description section is a duplication of the sub pages SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) and SpaceX Super Heavy.

I see two options here:

1. Write shorter high level paragraphs to describe each component and then link to the main article
2. Transclude the "Design" sections from the sub articles using the "Excerpt" template so that the content isn't duplicated and is easier to maintain.

Thoughts? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on #2 Redacted II (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already worked on shortening them, so i would say #1, but #2 sounds fine aswell Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with 1. Narnianknight (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the recent growth of the Super Heavy article, I no longer favor #2 and will support #1 as well. HLFan (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Derivative Work

Is Starship HLS really derivative work? Its only a variant of Starship, after all. Redacted II (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Article needs version of Raptor engines added

Article needs version of Raptor engines added 184.88.18.214 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That info is on the Raptor article Redacted II (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Potential missions and Potential use cases

They're basically the same section.

Shouldn't they be merged? Redacted II (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they could very well be merged. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Done Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think is a dumb idea to consider test flights as successful or failures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Topic already exists elsewhere Redacted II (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

---

This rocket is under development, so, why use test launches for the safety record? Yukielgato (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that you commented here, should this topic be closed? Redacted II (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The S33 problem

IFT-7 will be using a V1 booster and a V2 ship.

What are we going to be calling this config? V1? V2? V1.5? Redacted II (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we always explicitely say that this is a mixed configuration. I would not want to say V 1.5 as it could create a confusion about a not talked about, in-between version. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What about in the infobox? Or the tables in Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle?

It will have to be in one of the categories Redacted II (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a footnote in the infobox. I would like to hear the opinion of others though. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If Block 1.5 is off the table, it'll have to be listed as Block 1 or a Block 2 (with a note listing that X flights were using a Block 2 ship and a Block 1 Booster) Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

But which one is it going to be listed under?

Block 2 (New ship) or Block 1 (Same booster) Redacted II (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Imo, it should be block 1. Like sure the ship gets bigger and gets different flaps, but overall not so much change to call the whole stack block 2 Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The ship upgrades look more significant than booster changes. We could make a v1/v2 category in infoboxes, but long-term I don't think that matters. --mfb (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

While i agree, i dont think its enough to make us write v2/ block2 instead of just 1 with a footnote Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Atlas V gets separated by # of SRBs.

Changing pretty much the entire design of both stages is a much larger difference. Redacted II (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Most sources are saying that this is Block 2. Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont agree with calling it Block 2. But if the sources say block 2 then i guess we do so too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

In § Super Heavy booster, change the text

is composed of four general sections: the engines, the fuel tank, the oxygen tank, and the interstage.

to

is composed of four general sections: the engines, the oxygen tank, the fuel tank, and the interstage.

As explained in the "Tanks" subsection, the LOX tank is immediately above the engines, so this puts the parts in the right order. 97.102.205.224 (talk)

The section you are requesting be changed is transcluded from Super Heavy.

So the edit requested has been completed there. Redacted II (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

New flight succes

Infobox says ift6 is block 1, i thought we agreed to call it block 2? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

IFT-6 is Block 1.

IFT-7+ are Block 2 (until Block 3, if that ever happens) Redacted II (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry,my bad! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure

Discussion around IFT-1, 2 and 3 have demonstrated that classifying these launches as either "success" or "failure" is a bit simplistic. Rather, it would be better to classify them as "development test flights", and leave success/failure classification for actual payload missions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support The launch vehicle design hasn't been finalized yet. I think it'd also help avoid all the debates every time there's a launch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The IFT launches can be labeled as v1, like Falcon 9.Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. iT would help alleviate the conflicts between editors and reduce vandalism IMO. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a move based on the same grounds as my comment for IFT-2 - in summary, these aren't actual production launches, but rather test flights for development phases. This is also different from most other test flights that do get counted into the Infobox because those test flights are for the final vehicle, not for development. It would also solve this issue where we would have an entire debate each time there is a test flight, considering most of the comments and !votes I've seen aren't that policy/previous consensus-based. User3749 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per my (now archived) comment (formerly) above. Quoted here: Success or Inapplicable. Given that the whole purpose of the launch/flight/mission was to find potential points of failure in the vehicle/system any outcome that doesn't cause collateral damage is either a successful search for failures or not quantifiable as a success or failure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong support enough editor time has been wasted on this trivial point. Those are development flights and it is clear that this topic requires more nuance than a "success/failure" binary option. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Other aerospace companies spend a lot of time making sure that everything is done right the first time around, before they put together and launch a complete vehicle. Rockets failing on the first try is the exception, not the norm, and there's no logical reason why SpaceX should be treated as "special" in some way. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your opposition. SpaceX does just the necessary to get FAA approval, and their prototypes are guaranteed to fail, and sometimes get intentionally destroyed. So, SpaceX instead of taking their time to make a good prototype, they launch an uncompleted prototype. And I disagree of test flights being in the safety record of rockets. 2800:E2:4A80:DCB:3D98:4ABE:5591:3E06 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your opposition. SpaceX is using a rapid development approach, and has very little expectations for these launches. Their primary goal is to get flight data, not to send a payload, which they succeeded in. 136.169.243.150 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came to close the above RfC, took a brief look at the complex arguments and analyses, and immediately thought: "This is why we normally only include simple details in infoboxes!" —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Since all but two editors here (me and DASL51984) have supported the motion, I believe this topic should transition to what we are going to call the launches, if anything at all.

My proposal is this: Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3 (and a note to explain why they are excluded from success vs failure, similar to what exists on the Space Shuttle article) Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait until the RfC is closed :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — these were test flights, with the goal for the company to flight test on an integrated vehicle things they could not completely test in ground tests, or under conditions that exist on the surface of Earth. No one, and no engineer on the SpaceX development team, knows how far one of these test flights will go, where thousands of sequential events have to go right to even get to the later parts of a flight test. There was no commercial objective for these test flights: e.g., like "place the xyz payload into orbit". It is just wiki-original research to try to simplify into "Success" or "Failure" when many tens of major test objectives are in play. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — as SpaceX itself publishes only informal launch objectives and post-launch summaries we end up in endless and needless discussions after every IFT launch. IlkkaP (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that the IFT-3 RfC has been closed, and that only two editors (myself and DASL51984) have expressed opposition to not classifying IFT flights as Success, partial failure, or failure, I believe it is fair to say a consensus has formed in favor of this option.

I have already made a proposal for a new classification, which I will repeat here:

Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3, with a note saying "V1 Test Flights are not included with other flights due to significant differences between vehicles, and the iterative flight plans of the various launches" Regardless of the outcome of IFT-4, 5, 6, or 7, they would be included under this category as well.

Until a new classification is decided, the infobox should remain unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In other articles, including Falcon 1 (Flight 1-4 were tests, Flight 5 was operational) and Space Shuttle (STS 1-4 were tests, STS 5-135 were operational), test flights are counted. Consensus should still respect precedents and standards, and must only overrule them with proof that the precedents and standards were erroneous. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note to closer - While I closed the previous RFC, I explicitly did not override consensus on this discussion, wherever it lands. If the consensus here is not clear cut, I recommend reading the previous RFC's discussion, as multiple editors there discussed removal without repeating those arguments here. Soni (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The only argument supporting this is to avoid further debates, but this is misguided and I hope that experienced editors here can avoid rushing to that conclusion, consensus can't be mere arbitrary majority. Every other article on the topic, such as Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Saturn V, include this information. The standard is that every rocket, both SpaceX and NASA, successes and failures are recorded, and laypersons like me can readily understand it. I don't believe there will much more debates for three reasons, first that we agreed upon the upper limit of failure in IFT-2 and the lower limit of success in IFT-3, second that we find each of these supported by reliable sources and not original research, third that we have every reason to expect that most future launches are more likely to be successful, please wait until IFT-4, IFT-5, IFT-6 before deciding to omit this information. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this opposition. O.

ther companies take an approach of taking their time, and avoid explosions, but Spasometimes intentionally blows up prototypes to ensure success as fast as possible.ceX , Yukielgato (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Starship follows a very different approach compared to traditional rockets, wherein failures are expected as part of the development process. It would be unfair for Starship to classify IFT1, IFT2 and IFT3 as failures when they met their respective goals of testing different aspects of the vehicle, and it would be unfair for other rockets to classify them as success when their respective vehicles very clearly suffered unintended catastrophic failures. Even IFT4, which was the first to reach all of its stated flight plan, is not a complete success because of the heavy damage suffered during reentry that would probably preclude it from being reused in an operational flight (if it didn't land on water of course). In my view the only option here is to list test flights in a different category. Agile Jello (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to correct something, the final RfC consensus was IFT-3 was a success. Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support. Every time there’s an IFT an edit war starts and this can finalize that problem by acknowledging that these are tests. CaptHorizon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support, why you would dirt a safety record with test launches? After all Starship is under development. Yukielgato (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to include them, and label them as developmental launches.

Such as Failures 2 Block1: 2.

This should be done the moment S33 flies. Redacted II (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncourced claim of sat clearance

by Thistheyear2023. Where is the sense of protecting an article when users may put every unsourced nonsense in thile IPs can't even put an "citation needed" flag up? Same nonsense was in Flight Test 7 article where @RickyCourtney removed it; please do so here. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Article was protected due to heated dispute regarding IFT success v.s failure status.

There was a lot of edit warring, so the page was protected.

However, I am not sure why that was included.

@Thistheyear2023 do you have a source regarding Starship being cleared to begin deploying payloads? Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes from this article: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/the-key-moment-came-38-minutes-after-starship-roared-off-the-launch-pad/

” That's when Starship reignited one of its six Raptor engines for a brief burn to make a slight adjustment to its flight path. The burn lasted only a few seconds, and the impulse was small—just a 48 mph (77 km/hour) change in velocity, or delta-V—but it demonstrated that the ship can safely deorbit itself on future missions.

With this achievement, Starship will likely soon be cleared to travel into orbit around Earth and deploy Starlink Internet satellites or conduct in-space refueling experiments, two of the near-term objectives on SpaceX's Starship development roadmap.“ Thistheyear2023 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Will likely soon be cleared ≠ was cleared. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this doesnt mean a anything Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wonder why all the Starship articles became playgrounds for people who watch and read lots of videos and websites, but then seem to understand not properly and put halfbaked info as facts into articles that even the source rates as mere guessing... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably because Starship has garnered the attention of more youngsters,who will then watch clickbait videos not knowing the Info isnt correct. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fehér Zsigmond-03 That's what I think, too. Even worse, all the Original Research coming from false/doubtful interpretation of some vague facts. Lots and lots of them lately. Most recent example is the ongoing discussion in several places whether a flight was actually orbital. They look up some raw flight data from an unsources third party private website (wp:rs non-reliable sources), compare with the one definition of "orbit" (out of many = cherrypicking) they like best, and then insist that this flight therefore (wp:or) was orbital or suborbital and to put that as fact into the article. Why can't anyone stick to the official statements or wait for them to come up? Might it be mere satisfaction for a know-it-all to be the first to have discovered a tiny new fact? Serious work on an encyclopedia should work differently... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I belive in the past there were arguments here about the flights being trans-atmospheric or suborbital too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of a complete removal, it should be changed to "Potentially enabling Starship to begin orbital flights", which is backed by a source. Redacted II (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be fine to be put it somewhere on the page but it’s not notable enough for inclusion in the intro to this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

Maybe in the IFT-6 mini-section? Redacted II (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Speculation by some third party about what might happen in the future should not be part of the main area of an article in principle. In an article about a movie, it would belong in the "reception" section. No such thing is in any rocket related article. So kindly wait until FAA really clears sat deliverance and not jonjecture around. Does not help the article at all, only flatters some ego. 47.69.168.221 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

While you do not bother to reply to valid arguments, maybe because you have nothing to contribute, you instead chose to tamper with other peoples comments.

Note: It is extremely rude and uncooperative to change someone else's edit.

Be reminded of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines:

• Comment on content, not on the contributor [not even in the edit summary!]
• Behavior that is unacceptable: Generally, do not alter others' comments

WP:TPO - Exception: Sockpuppets. Any proof?? Or another falce accusation? 80.187.75.118 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing WP:PA.

"Flatters some ego" is a clear WP:PA violation

(Also, you've misused the Trout on my talk page) Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

About the clutter of the Starship topic and all the ramifications with which it has grown like a malignant tumor.

It is unnecessary to state the reasons in a long text. Everyone is a witness to what is happening. There is hardly any other rocket and space system, or an entire space program, with such a dedicated space for information (in the English version). There is hardly any subtopic for every bolt, nut and tube and when these fasteners flew. If my way of describing entertains you, you can always use an appropriate emoticon. But I cry, my eyes water when I have to read everything, which takes a long time. ГеоргиУики (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not hiring as I would have to write an entire scientific paper for the purpose. But what I mean is so obvious, why do you want a justification? ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I can give something as an idea. I think a single template representing a table of all SpaceX Starship launches is sufficient, instead of whole article for each. There is currently a separate article for each integrated test flight(IFT). ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The List of Starship launches article is already quite large. And will only grow larger (just look at the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches article as an example).

Having a template instead makes no sense.

(Also, saying you don't need a justification for your complaints severely reduces the validity of your argument) Redacted II (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem. I see no reason to describe in detail every event related to SpaceX Starship(and falcon 9 too). That was also the reason I ironically blurted out that there is hardly a record here of everything that happens with bolts, nuts and pipes. This looked like, not an article on Wikipedia, but a detailed chronicle, the way the king's retinue of courtiers create thick biographical volumes for his majesty with descriptions of everything he has done, almost the exact time and date of every time he visited the toilet and what he "produced" in it. ГеоргиУики (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an extremely large precedent to list every launch. Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ha, it seems to be more common than I thought. Do you think it is of any use? ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sice spacex change smth for every launch, there is always smth new to include,wich is enough to write an article about Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, as I saw in the examples you mentioned, there is no separate article for each test flight, in the way that there is an article for SS IFT1; SS IFT2 and so on. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Not all flights require an article. But the intial flight tests of a fully reusable Super heavy-lift launch vehicle are incredibly notable. I'm expecting each flight to get an article until either payload deployment begins or reflight of both stages. But IDK. Redacted II (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I can actually see most Starship launches after the first reflight of both stages not getting an individual article.

Starlink or Starshield missions would only appear on "List of launches" type articles.

The Starship Arthemis missions likely would include all tanker launches and the launch containing the lander in a table on a single article.

Early Mars missions could have a table similar to the one for the Starship Arthemis missions. AmigaClone (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll comment here only on the narrow part of the discussion dealing with articles on each launch. Today, each Starship test flight is so different, and each is so widely covered in both U.S. and international secondary-source media, that of course each flight will, and should, have its own article. This has been the norm for launch coverage on Wikipedia for 2+ decades. When that ceases to be the case for Starship, as someday it likely will if a high-launch rate is achieved, there will no longer be a justification for one-article-per-launch. When that day arrives, some editor will likely create that article for the nth Starship launch, and that article will then, at that time, get AfD'd, and ultimately, not survive the AfD. That day is not now. N2e (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There has been no specific PROPOSAL made, so the above discussion is necessarily vague and not straightforward to discern consensus. If someone has a specific proposal to make, go for it. N2e (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a few different proposals.

Proposal 1.

Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect). This may take awhile, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.

Proposal 2.

Wait until successful reflight with recovery. Its likely that every single flight until this point (and likely a few after) will be test flights with significant media coverage.

Proposal 3.

Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect) and reflight (with recovery being successful, meaning both stages are not obviously incapable of reflight). This will take longer, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.

Proposal 4.

Wait until Starship begins deploying payloads (and no, the banana does not count).

Proposal 5.

Wait until Starship is flying twice a month consistenly (this is more than Arianespace + ULA combined have ever achieved in a single year).

Personally, I favor Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, as it has already received significant coverage. Redacted II (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a combination of Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, possibly along the lines of Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests.

Some notes:

• One of the first payloads to be deployed will likely be the Starship version of Starlink. That payload would likely only need an edit to the header of List of Starlink and Starshield launches and adding couple of lines in the table describing the launches.

• The Starship missions to the moon could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for that mission.

• Initial Starship missions to Mars could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for a mission. AmigaClone (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all of your points.

I already have a draft of the Prop Transfer Demo Article in my sandbox (I'll upgrade it to an official draft sometime soon), though its closer to the current flight test articles than the F9 landing test article. Redacted II (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

About proposal 5. For next year FAA decided to give 15 starts to SpaceX Starship. Maybe from 2026 number of starts will be enough to average of 2 or more per month? ГеоргиУики (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Source?

Last I heard they only had permission for 5/year (but are aiming for 25 in 2025). Redacted II (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ups, yes my bad memory. Up to 25 and for 2025 and still not permitted. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we need a potential missions section?

The "Potential Missions" section is... unique to this article, and doesn't really add much. Shouldn't it be removed? Redacted II (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say there is a better case for the "Potential Missions" section be divided into three:

• NASA/DoD Missions (containing Arthemis and "Rocket Cargo") - basically those missions where there is a signed contract.

• SpaceX Missions (Containing Starlink, Mars Colonization, Point to Point)

• Potential Missions (The other missions) AmigaClone (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That definitely works. But long term it doesn't make sense to list every single type of mission flown. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)